Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] GAC Communique on JAS

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

Applications which are needs-qualified and "community-based" are, due 
to the current string contention eligibility requirements, either 
certain to fail if found to be in a contention set, if meeting only 13 
or fewer of the 16 evaluation points, and lacking access to auction 
capital, or are certain to fail if meeting the 14/16 evaluation point 
goal due to highly restrictive registration policies.
While the issue of community evaluation scoring and string contention 
policy are outside the apparent remit of the JAS, if the 
implementation in the current DAG is the final text, then we are 
highly unlikely to be able to identify contention set surviving, or 
economically viable community-based applicants, except where the 
applicant identified the application as community-based, but made no 
restriction intended to meet the 14 of 16 threshold.
I suggest that this is an issue we can usefully bring to the attention 
of the Board, and others, as the elimination of community-based 
applicants from the beneficiaries of the JAS effort is unlikely to 
have been the Board's intended goal, nor that of the GAC and others 
contributing to the issue of developing a community-based application 
type which is not inherently non-viable.

Please see the comments submitted, particularly those of Amadeu, Avri, 
and Elisa Cooper of Mark Monitor on the subject of scoring 
community-based applications.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00002.html (Amadeu)
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00001.html (Avri)
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-contention/msg00000.html (Elisa 
Cooper of Mark Monitor)
Eric